16:31:23 <dustymabe> #startmeeting fedora_coreos_meeting
16:31:23 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Dec  9 16:31:23 2020 UTC.
16:31:23 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
16:31:23 <zodbot> The chair is dustymabe. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:31:23 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:31:23 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_coreos_meeting'
16:31:32 <dustymabe> #topic roll call
16:31:36 <dustymabe> .hello2
16:31:37 <zodbot> dustymabe: dustymabe 'Dusty Mabe' <dusty@dustymabe.com>
16:31:40 <bgilbert> .hello2
16:31:41 <zodbot> bgilbert: bgilbert 'Benjamin Gilbert' <bgilbert@backtick.net>
16:31:52 <cyberpear> .hello2
16:31:53 <zodbot> cyberpear: cyberpear 'James Cassell' <fedoraproject@cyberpear.com>
16:31:57 <travier> .hello2 siosm
16:31:58 <zodbot> travier: Sorry, but you don't exist
16:31:59 <skunkerk> .hello sohank2602
16:32:00 <zodbot> skunkerk: sohank2602 'Sohan Kunkerkar' <skunkerk@redhat.com>
16:32:02 <travier> .hello siosm
16:32:04 <zodbot> travier: siosm 'Timothée Ravier' <travier@redhat.com>
16:32:20 <jlebon> .hello2
16:32:21 <zodbot> jlebon: jlebon 'None' <jonathan@jlebon.com>
16:32:48 <dustymabe> red_beard: around today?
16:33:01 <red_beard> .hello redbeard
16:33:02 <zodbot> red_beard: redbeard 'Brian 'redbeard' Harrington' <bharring@redhat.com>
16:33:09 <red_beard> yup.  am today
16:33:12 <davdunc> .hello2
16:33:13 <zodbot> davdunc: davdunc 'David Duncan' <davdunc@amazon.com>
16:33:17 <jdoss> .hello2
16:33:19 <zodbot> jdoss: jdoss 'Joe Doss' <joe@solidadmin.com>
16:33:24 <lorbus> .hello2
16:33:25 <zodbot> lorbus: lorbus 'Christian Glombek' <cglombek@redhat.com>
16:34:08 <dustymabe> #chair bgilbert cyberpear travier skunkerk red_beard davdunc jdoss lorbus
16:34:08 <zodbot> Current chairs: bgilbert cyberpear davdunc dustymabe jdoss lorbus red_beard skunkerk travier
16:34:53 <dustymabe> #topic Action items from last meeting
16:35:06 <dustymabe> * red_beard to investigate forklifting FCOS artifacts into OVH to see if
16:35:08 <dustymabe> they work
16:35:10 <dustymabe> * red_beard to open a ticket to strategize on FCOS RH summit presence
16:35:13 <dustymabe> * jlebon to talk with King_InuYasha to see if they can be co-captains
16:35:14 <dustymabe> for the proposed change to move the rpmdb path (#639)
16:35:17 <dustymabe> * dustymabe and jlebon to talk to the systemd team to see if we can come
16:35:19 <dustymabe> to agreement on a path forward for the fallback hostname behavior
16:35:21 <dustymabe> introduced in systemd in fedora 33
16:35:57 <dustymabe> #info jlebon and dustymabe have been working with the systemd team on the hostname issue. Unfortunately the simple revert didn't completely solve the problem. Will discuss more in dedicated meeting topic.
16:37:33 <red_beard> welp, half of those are me.....
16:37:56 <red_beard> so, if someone can bring the zodbot magic
16:37:57 <lucab> .hello2
16:37:58 <zodbot> lucab: lucab 'Luca Bruno' <lucab@redhat.com>
16:38:05 <dustymabe> #chair lucab
16:38:05 <zodbot> Current chairs: bgilbert cyberpear davdunc dustymabe jdoss lorbus lucab red_beard skunkerk travier
16:38:12 <dustymabe> red_beard: want me to re-action?
16:38:30 <jlebon> #info jlebon started conversation about rpmdb path move -- we're waiting for feedback from the rpm team
16:39:03 <jbrooks> .hello jasonbrooks
16:39:04 <zodbot> jbrooks: jasonbrooks 'Jason Brooks' <jbrooks@redhat.com>
16:39:14 <red_beard> #info forgot to open the ticket with regards to RH Summit (fortunately we've still got quite a few months)
16:39:30 <dustymabe> #chair jbrooks
16:39:30 <zodbot> Current chairs: bgilbert cyberpear davdunc dustymabe jbrooks jdoss lorbus lucab red_beard skunkerk travier
16:41:16 <dustymabe> #action red_beard to investigate forklifting FCOS artifacts into OVH to see if they work
16:41:19 <dustymabe> #action red_beard to open a ticket to strategize on FCOS RH summit presence
16:41:23 <dustymabe> i'll just re-action them for now
16:41:39 <dustymabe> #topic delayed stable release / pending F33 migration
16:42:09 <dustymabe> as mentioned in the action item #info above, we're working hard with the systemd and NetworkManager teams to unwind the mess around hostname handling in Fedora 33. We're trying to make sure that we know as much information as possible so we don't break people's existing setups.
16:43:07 <dustymabe> We worked with the systemd team last week and agreed on a simple fix to revert the change in systemd. Unfortunately the simple fix that we thought would solve every problem had a weird twist. All of this is covered in detail in https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/649#issuecomment-741555046
16:43:36 <dustymabe> TL;DR - we're still working through our options with the systemd team and sorry for the delay
16:44:00 <lorbus> thanks for keeping at it, Dusty!
16:44:30 <dustymabe> if we want to discuss any details here I'm up for that, otherwise we can just keep it to the ticket
16:44:47 <jlebon> dustymabe: if we go down that road, we might take up the whole meeting :)
16:45:24 <dustymabe> #info Unfortunately the simple fix that we thought would solve every problem had a weird twist and we're working through the options with the systemd team still. All of this is covered in detail in https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/649#issuecomment-741555046
16:45:31 <dustymabe> :)
16:45:33 <jlebon> you need at least like 64G of brain RAM to load in all the information
16:45:40 <dustymabe> ok I'll move on to the next topic
16:46:13 <dustymabe> #topic Mount /boot as RO by default
16:46:22 <dustymabe> #link https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/652
16:46:24 <dustymabe> this one is for travier
16:46:35 <travier> TL,DR: Mount /boot as RO by default
16:46:45 <travier> We will be mounting /boot RO by default. bootupd and fwupd have been updated to handle this case.
16:46:54 <travier> Users should change kernel arguments and boot order via rpm-ostree only and should not edit files in /boot directly.
16:47:30 <jlebon> +1
16:47:37 <travier> It is still possible to remount RW but this is discouraged
16:48:27 <travier> This is preparatory work for not mounting /boot/efi by default
16:48:34 <dustymabe> travier: the main benefit being: "The main thing we're accomplishing here is making the system more resilient against accidental damage from a sysadmin root shell as well as configuration management tools like Puppet/Ansible. None of those should be directly manipulating files on these partitions, they should go through the API of one of our projects (e.g. rpm-ostree kargs, bootupctl)
16:48:36 <dustymabe> etc."
16:48:39 <travier> https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/694
16:49:00 <cyberpear> my only concern would be that fwupd and bootupd have a way to detect if it's been mounted RO for some other reason, such as drive corruption
16:49:04 <travier> dustymabe: Thanks 👍
16:49:23 <dustymabe> cyberpear: good point
16:50:04 <dustymabe> I guess the operation would just fail?
16:50:10 <travier> cyberpear: I think private RW remount will fail for rpm-ostree and that should be reported in the logs
16:50:34 <cyberpear> sounds reasonable if it works that way
16:51:04 <dustymabe> travier: when is this work scheduled to land?
16:51:36 <travier> As dustymabe said, this is not a hard RO mount and rpm-ostree and fwupd are remounting RW in a private namespace to operate on /boot
16:52:06 <travier> we are currently waiting for a bootupd release with the remount code and then it should be ready to land
16:52:38 <dustymabe> I know at some point we were thinking about using grubenv vars for some of our greenboot fallback stuff
16:52:55 <dustymabe> i guess this might hinder that some? or we could just mount private RW if we ever got to that point
16:53:12 <dustymabe> cc lorbus
16:54:49 <dustymabe> oh well, seems like we'll cross that bridge when we get there
16:54:53 <bgilbert> as part of the RAID work we've basically ruled out using grubenv
16:55:15 <lorbus> hm yeah good question. greenboot calls out to /usr/bin/grub2-editenv to manipulate the grub env
16:55:42 <lorbus> but OTOH greenboot isn't used in FCOS atm
16:55:47 <dustymabe> #topic open floor
16:55:57 <dustymabe> a whole lot of time for open floor today
16:56:00 <travier> The FCOS hands-on lab has been accepted for DevConf.CZ 2021!
16:56:06 <dustymabe> travier: woot woot
16:56:21 <dustymabe> i guess we do have jbrooks and red_beard here today, we could revisit the twitter @coreos handle discussion
16:56:49 <davdunc> nice submission travier on the hands-on lab.
16:56:50 <travier> lorbus: if needed, we will be able to teach greenboot to remount RW in a private namespace
16:57:29 <travier> davdunc: I think it was nasirhm as I didn't do the submission :)
16:57:44 <lorbus> travier: +1
16:57:55 <jbrooks> red_beard, Do you want to weigh in on the twitter discussion?
16:58:01 <bgilbert> dustymabe: can we topic it?
16:58:13 <dustymabe> #topic twitter @coreos handle
16:58:28 <dustymabe> done
16:59:13 <bgilbert> I have some thoughts but want to wait for red_beard
16:59:58 <red_beard> i'm around
16:59:59 <dustymabe> plays jeopardy music
17:00:15 <red_beard> sorry, so to be quite frank
17:00:37 <red_beard> based on the suggestions from before, it seems like this is the blind leading the blind
17:00:54 <red_beard> with little understanding of the ramifications of changing twitter handles, etc
17:01:13 <red_beard> and my stance is, if you don't understand it: don't touch it
17:01:23 <jbrooks> What don't we understand?
17:01:41 * red_beard sighs
17:01:47 <dustymabe> ^^ - I have some opinions on what that means, but would be nice to state it so we are on the same page
17:01:54 <red_beard> what were the 2/3/4 proposals again?
17:02:08 <dustymabe> one sec
17:02:30 <jbrooks> That handle is retired now. It's being used for nothing. We can use it for this project. We change the display name to Fedora CoreOS and start tweeting from there.
17:02:33 <red_beard> just finished a video call which required about 75% of my attention (my apologies)
17:02:52 <bgilbert> fwiw, the status quo is not an option.  either we do something with @coreos or it gets deleted.
17:03:11 <red_beard> so, along those lines: if a name is deleted, another user can sigh up to use it
17:03:18 <jbrooks> If we are concerned that the info won't be useful to the current followers, we can poll them. My view is that we should just make the switch.
17:03:19 <red_beard> thus, spoofing coreos.  next proposal
17:03:42 <dustymabe> 1. take twitter account keep name/followers. Stop using the @fedoraCoreOS account
17:03:44 <bgilbert> red_beard: I understand.  but those are the alternatives we've been given.
17:03:49 <dustymabe> 2. if possible: take twitter account renamve to @FedoraCoreOS (our existing name), keep followers
17:03:55 <dustymabe> 3. don't take @coreos account, just keep using our existing @FedoraCoreOS with current followers (building them up from scratch)
17:04:01 <dustymabe> 4. Delete @coreos account, rename @fedoraCoreOS to @coreos (building followers from scratch)
17:04:07 <dustymabe> 5. put a Twitter poll on the @CoreOS account
17:04:20 <red_beard> so, #2 is the same.  if you rename it, it can be claimed.
17:04:43 <jbrooks> I don't think it has to be deleted, it can just be dead
17:04:48 <PanGoat> ^^
17:04:52 <red_beard> #2 and #4 are (more or less the same)
17:04:58 <jbrooks> Not that I think that's a good idea
17:05:06 <bgilbert> jbrooks: I may have misunderstood.  but @coreossecurity was outright deleted.
17:05:13 <red_beard> jbrooks: if you open a ticket and have the juice, yes, but it's hard
17:05:31 <red_beard> otherwise we wouldn't have paid a guy in Greece to get it
17:05:34 <dustymabe> #2 and #4 differ in how many followers we retain
17:06:00 <dustymabe> and also what handle gets used
17:06:07 <jbrooks> red_beard, Open a ticket with who? There are tons of accts with no recent tweets, right? I guess we'd have to log in periodically to keep it status quo
17:06:17 <PanGoat> Random Question from the Peanut Gallery: Have you looked at the followers to see how many are legit, active, etc.?
17:06:25 <red_beard> great question
17:06:39 * PanGoat <- Jaime Magiera
17:07:19 <red_beard> jbrooks: account purging is _relatively_ new and not automated
17:08:30 <cyberpear> maybe adopt @coreos handle for FCOS marketing things/feature announcements, and keep @FedoraCoreOS for updates/security announcements? (If you're worried about spamming the @coreos followers too much) -- My preference would be to adopt the @coreos handle as-is and change only the display name
17:09:15 <jbrooks> So, we want attn for Fedora CoreOS. To the extent that the OS, CoreOS, lives on as an open source project, it lives on through Fedora CoreOS. Why not use this twitter handle?
17:09:27 <red_beard> damnit.... i've been sending messages to lucab
17:09:30 <dustymabe> cyberpear: so you vote for 1.
17:09:38 * bgilbert waves at lucab
17:09:46 <cyberpear> dustymabe: yes, I vote for 1
17:09:49 <red_beard> https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/inactive-twitter-accounts
17:09:49 <jbrooks> :)
17:09:53 <red_beard> that's the actual policy
17:10:10 <red_beard> we "encourage" folks to log in....accounts "may" be deleted...
17:10:51 <dustymabe> the @fedoracoreos account got mysteriously suspended earlier this year for no reason (i suspect it was inactivity)
17:11:02 <dustymabe> that may be a precursor to getting deleted
17:11:38 <bgilbert> dustymabe: to be clear, looks like it's back now?
17:11:51 <dustymabe> oh yeah, jdoss helped us find a contact at twitter that got us squared away
17:12:06 <dustymabe> this was before we started using it at all, originally we were just squatting on the name
17:12:12 <bgilbert> so I see a couple independent things here: the name of our account, and whether we keep the existing followers.
17:12:21 <dustymabe> bgilbert: right
17:12:43 <bgilbert> re 1, we're talking about using the account for Fedora CoreOS things, so @fedoracoreos seems like a more accurate name.
17:13:12 <bgilbert> "CoreOS" is pretty ill-defined.  with Container Linux and CoreOS Inc. both gone, it's sort of synonymous with "OSes built by coreos-assembler" but that may change
17:13:22 <bgilbert> and anyway we don't plan to speak for RHCOS on this account.
17:13:38 <dustymabe> my personal feel is that @fedoracoreos is the more appropriate name
17:13:47 <bgilbert> (I don't have inside info on "that may change", it's just an observation about the stability of such things)
17:14:19 <dustymabe> but there are strong opinions that feel like using @coreos would be better
17:14:27 <bgilbert> and re 2, it feels really sketchy to repurpose an account with a lot of followers that joined for some other purpose, and redirect their attention to something semi-unrelated.
17:14:44 <bgilbert> I think we should have confidence that we can earn followers on our own merits if we work at it :-)
17:14:48 <jdoss> Eh, that's twitter. They can unfollow if they want.
17:14:59 <bgilbert> jdoss: that's true but not the point
17:15:04 <dustymabe> for that 'repurposing', i'm less concerned. especially if the account is effectively dead
17:15:32 <bgilbert> dustymabe: that's... backwards?  they're still following because the account is effectively dead, so nothing irrelevant is showing up in their timelines
17:15:40 <jdoss> From a marketing standpoint we should want the awesome work happening in Fedora CoreOS to be in front as many eyes as possible.
17:15:49 <bgilbert> if we took over the account and started advertising motorhomes, people would be annoyed, right?
17:15:56 <bgilbert> and yes, they'd unfollow
17:15:59 <jbrooks> But this is nothing like that
17:16:01 <bgilbert> but it'd be an abuse of their trust
17:16:02 <dustymabe> i'd rather make a clear statement this account was going bye bye, so we repurposed it for this, if you don't subscribe to that idea then please unfollow
17:16:03 <jbrooks> at all
17:16:08 <bgilbert> jbrooks: it's like that, just less extreme
17:16:12 <jbrooks> not at all
17:16:18 <bgilbert> they were interested in k8s and Tectonic and Container Linux
17:16:41 <jbrooks> The Container Linux name changed happened only a year before the acquisition
17:16:53 <dustymabe> i think we'd still be tweeting about Fedora CoreOS, OKD, Typhoon, K8s, etc..
17:17:04 <bgilbert> jbrooks: ...they weren't following it because the name was CoreOS, they were following it because they were interested in CL (or etcd or whatever)
17:17:06 <jbrooks> I bet that CoreOS means the OS, CoreOS to the vast majority
17:17:08 <red_beard> (which to bgilbert's point is why i still get tripped up calling it "container linux"
17:17:09 <dustymabe> all relevant and in the same ballpark
17:17:20 <red_beard> years of muscle memory
17:18:19 <jbrooks> This project has worked hard to carry on the things that CoreOS was about
17:18:41 <jbrooks> We'd be tweeting in good faith
17:19:05 <bgilbert> jbrooks: to be clear, I think that argument has _some_ merit.  but the motivations I'm hearing are concerning.
17:19:09 <bgilbert> "we can't lose the followers!"  why not?
17:19:18 <bgilbert> they're not ours to lose.
17:19:31 <jbrooks> Red Hat is giving them to us
17:19:39 <bgilbert> they're not Red Hat's to lose.
17:19:47 <jbrooks> Red Hat bought them
17:19:54 <PanGoat> you can always tweet "Hey, we're moving over here because..." and leave it to users to follow
17:19:55 <travier> Agree with jbrooks, and dustymabe: we should keep it and tweet about upstream Fedora CoreOS, OKD, Typhoon, K8s, etc work
17:19:56 <bgilbert> they are human beings, who are there for their own reasons.
17:20:15 <travier> or maybe retweet only
17:20:32 <jbrooks> And they can leave if they want to, but if they stay, they'll hear about the same sort of stuff they came for, coming from a lot of the same people
17:20:55 <jdoss> We should use the @coreos account to get more eyes on the project. It's a good name. If people don't want to see that on their feed, losing followers shouldn't be concerning. The project already lost users to Flatcar because of more important technical reasons.
17:21:09 <dustymabe> i think if this was a "pay $100 per year" subscription it would be different. It's really not hard to unfollow if this isn't their interest any longer.
17:21:23 <jlebon> can we do something like: clearly declare that the account will be "reset" and why, then do an atomic rename of FedoraCoreOS to coreos?
17:21:42 <dustymabe> jlebon: something like is what I was suggesting
17:21:57 <jlebon> dustymabe: then +1 to that :)
17:21:59 <bgilbert> I'm talking about the principle, not the mechanism.  yes, of course they can unfollow.  but I'd rather we do what we can do show respect to the community.
17:22:08 <travier> I think a rename is more sneaky than keeping it as it and tweeting about upstream projects
17:22:33 <jlebon> i.e. still use the way nicer handle, but accept to lose the followers and gain them back on merit
17:22:34 <bgilbert> so yes, at an absolute minimum we should be very clear about announcing what we're doing.
17:22:43 <bgilbert> I've made my point and will stop :-)
17:22:43 <dustymabe> bgilbert: all agreed on that point
17:22:46 <jbrooks> I really don't think it's disrespectful. If this *were* an RV company, I'd agree with you
17:22:54 <dustymabe> jbrooks: :)
17:23:02 <jlebon> wait, we're not building RVs here?
17:23:14 <bgilbert> jlebon: I'm confused about that myself often
17:23:21 <jbrooks> jlebon, you can suggest that in open floor
17:23:21 <PanGoat> RVOS
17:23:25 <jdoss> lol
17:23:27 <walters> (I lean a bit towards a middle ground: just using it very occasionally, like at most once a month and see what happens)
17:23:40 <lucab> I like travier's idea, but it's pretty much a full-time marketing job no?
17:23:41 <cyberpear> I still think putting a poll on the existing @coreos account is a good idea, to see what active followers would like to see from the account, if anything.
17:24:05 <PanGoat> wouldn't hurt to ask people. THe ones who respond will likely be the ones who care.
17:24:26 <PanGoat> most folks won't take a poll if they don't have an interest, right?
17:24:30 <jbrooks> lucab, my colleague in ospo can help schedule posts
17:24:31 <travier> I would suggest we do only simple retweets of FCOS announcements and some kubernetes or typhoon ones, which should be light load
17:24:47 <red_beard> travier: i agree with you overall.... i just feel realistically nobody is going to tweet about Typhoon or Flatcar
17:24:54 <jdoss> Ehhh I think we are overthinking this a bit. We as a project should want more people to use FCOS. Using @coreos can help with that.
17:25:22 <dustymabe> "nobody is going to tweet about Typhoon or Flatcar" ??
17:25:27 <red_beard> jdoss: i'd disagree about the over thinking
17:25:27 <jbrooks> doesn't typhoon work w/ fcos?
17:25:29 <PanGoat> walters: Does the FCOS group have a monthly announcement/update via email or any other platform?
17:25:34 <jbrooks> that'd be worth boosting
17:25:40 <bgilbert> PanGoat: intentionally no
17:25:55 <travier> we can also decide that we only retweet some accounts, no custom tweets
17:25:56 <bgilbert> PanGoat: the idea is that FCOS should "just work"
17:25:59 <dustymabe> bgilbert: our council reports are kind of like that
17:26:04 <bgilbert> dustymabe: okay, fair
17:26:07 <dustymabe> I send them to the devel@ lists
17:26:08 <lucab> jdoss: we keep tweeting from @fedoracoreos, and @coreos retweets that as well as other related stuff
17:26:15 <bgilbert> dustymabe: ah, I didn't know that
17:26:20 <red_beard> jbrooks: Dalton definitely has a penchant for Fedora so i'd _assume_ Typhoon has been tracking FCOS
17:26:35 <jbrooks> red_beard, I just checked, it does
17:27:00 <red_beard> i like lucab's suggestion
17:27:06 <jdoss> lucab: +1
17:27:10 <red_beard> lucab: +1
17:27:19 <dustymabe> so keep @coreos and make it just retweet @fedoracoreos' tweets?
17:27:22 <jbrooks> So, we don't use @coreos for Fedora CoreOS?
17:27:23 <lucab> it's actually travier's suggestion
17:27:35 <red_beard> dustymabe: as well as retweets of other things in the CoreOS ecosystem
17:27:36 <jbrooks> And why not?
17:27:39 <PanGoat> what would the "other related stuff" be?
17:27:45 <red_beard> sorry.... too much scrollback
17:27:57 <jbrooks> And what is the CoreOS ecosystem?
17:28:15 <bgilbert> jbrooks: let me know if you figure that out :-(
17:28:27 <dustymabe> red_beard: seems like a good idea, though I was thinking @fedoracoreos would retweet other things in the CoreOS ecosystem :)
17:28:28 <jdoss> I am still with jbrooks on this. I followed @coreos for when CL was called CoreOS. That is all I cared about back then and now I care about FCOS and it makes sense for @coreos to be talking about FCOS things.
17:28:29 <lucab> PanGoat, jbrooks : etcd, prometheus, k8s, typhoon, ostree, okd, ...
17:28:33 <red_beard> at a minimum accepting re-tweets from Typhoon, FlatCarLinux, etc
17:29:16 <jbrooks> So promoting all that stuff is now a goal of this project?
17:29:18 <bgilbert> FCOS and Flatcar tweets from the same account would be... confusing
17:29:27 <dustymabe> agree ^^
17:29:58 <travier> agree too unfortunately
17:30:06 <jbrooks> Let's keep this focused on Fedora CoreOS -- where those other topics touch fcos, tweets make sense
17:30:07 <red_beard> well, to be fair, Flatcar still bears more resemblance to CoreOS/Container Linux
17:30:34 <dustymabe> so basically the new proposal is:
17:30:38 <red_beard> toolbox works in that one (unless we fixed it recently)
17:30:39 <jdoss> red_beard: right and they didn't buy CoreOS and the brand.
17:30:59 <red_beard> wait... so this is just now about what was "bought" and not the community of users?
17:31:04 <dustymabe> 6. keep @coreos, retweet @fedoracoreos stuff (and other related stuff that touches on fedora coreos)
17:31:07 <red_beard> that's some BS
17:31:15 <jdoss> Its reality
17:31:27 <jbrooks> It's about both of those things
17:31:41 <bgilbert> jdoss: it's not.  again, we don't own the users.  they come of their own volition, they leave of their own volition.
17:31:47 <bgilbert> we serve them, not the other way around, and I hope we keep that in mind.
17:31:49 <red_beard> bgilbert: +1
17:31:56 <jbrooks> there's a trademark, the thing in the market under that name is the project we're all working on here
17:32:20 <lucab> dustymabe: this new 6 was pretty much the status quo, until we have been told RH wanted to give back the account to us
17:32:44 <lucab> dustymabe: I personally liked the way it was going
17:32:44 <red_beard> and along those lines
17:32:46 <jbrooks> I still vote 1
17:32:47 <dustymabe> lucab: except we don't have access to it and no retweeting was going on
17:33:07 <travier> I guess the difference is that we will not be retweeting product announcements but upstream announcements
17:33:09 <jbrooks> lucab, There have been only 3 tweets this year
17:33:15 <red_beard> i find it ironic that when Red Hat gives the asset back to the community project, the folks on the community project become "yes men" to Red Hat
17:33:18 <lucab> dustymabe: exact, there was some RH marketing person doing it
17:33:28 <jbrooks> ?
17:33:32 <red_beard> the exact PR Red Hat is (generally) trying to avoid
17:33:33 <jbrooks> red_beard, what do you mean?
17:33:44 <jdoss> red_beard: *eye roll*
17:33:55 <red_beard> jdoss' standpoint
17:33:55 <jbrooks> I want what's good for this project
17:34:17 <jbrooks> And I want to do right by the users
17:34:25 <dustymabe> I'm a bit lost in the conversation, but just to be clear, jdoss doesn't work for Red Hat
17:34:36 <jdoss> Yea I don't work for Red Hat at all.
17:35:00 <lucab> jbrooks: this year was pretty rough on many sides, I was thinking of 2019 mostly
17:35:05 <jdoss> and I can see that using @coreos to get more eyes on FCOS is good for the project and the current users of FCOS.
17:35:14 <jbrooks> lucab, it's retired, that's the status quo
17:35:22 <red_beard> fair enough, i stand corrected.
17:35:35 * jbrooks does work for Red Hat :)
17:35:45 <jdoss> The old CoreOS is dead. That company is dead. CoreOS, the brand, lives on in Fedora CoreOS.
17:35:59 <jbrooks> +1
17:36:09 <jbrooks> bottom line
17:36:12 <jdoss> Users that don't want that followed @flatcar to have the old CoreOS.
17:36:15 * dustymabe just realized he brought up a naming discussion.. in 2020 of all years
17:36:35 <bgilbert> FWIW we've worked pretty hard in the official messaging to make it clear that things are slightly more complicated
17:36:49 <bgilbert> see the various FCOS release announcements and the CL EOL announcement
17:37:18 <davdunc> I think it's important to stay specific to the FCOS that is associated. It has a strong association . I agree it is important to celebrate achievements in Flatcar, but from a more personal account.
17:37:40 <dustymabe> so.. without more information I don't think we're going to make a lot of progress today.
17:37:55 <dustymabe> I think option 6 is a good "almost status quo" option
17:37:56 <jbrooks> What information?
17:38:06 <bgilbert> we do need to have some path forward
17:38:09 <jbrooks> It's all opinion, I'd say, feeling
17:38:11 <dustymabe> a twitter poll might give us more information
17:38:29 <dustymabe> but we haven't agreed to do that yet
17:38:42 <dustymabe> I think short of a poll we're not going to move past our current differences
17:38:55 <jbrooks> If that's what's holding us back, ok, but I don't think that's what's holding us back
17:39:00 <dustymabe> so we'd need to probably put a stick in the ground and just choose one
17:39:07 <lucab> just a straw idea
17:39:15 <PanGoat> +1 dustymabe
17:39:19 <PanGoat> ask the users
17:39:20 <lucab> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curators_of_Sweden on top of 6
17:39:38 <bgilbert> dustymabe: I don't especially like the poll but I agree that we're not coming to a consensus
17:39:50 <jdoss> The poll idea isn't going to get us any useful info.
17:39:51 <PanGoat> you may get lots of responses or zero responses (which may say something in itself)
17:40:06 <bgilbert> jdoss: what it would give us is a temperature check from the existing followers
17:40:11 <davdunc> a poll isn't going to get us closer to consensus either
17:40:25 <bgilbert> which would address the question of how unhappy we'll make them :-/
17:40:29 <lucab> whoever volunteers to, rotate weekly(?) on @coreos, retweeting things that seems relevant to "coreos"
17:40:30 <dustymabe> davdunc: at least it would give us some data
17:40:37 <lucab> which means FCOS and more
17:40:45 <PanGoat> The poll tells you what the followers would think about the options.
17:40:49 <jdoss> bgilbert: they can unfollow. FCOS is the reality of the CoreOS brand.
17:40:49 <davdunc> dustymabe: good point.
17:41:20 <jbrooks> dustymabe, I guess, for the people who are against using the handle, would a poll change their minds?
17:41:32 <jbrooks> If not, the data is useless
17:41:34 <bgilbert> jdoss: I'm just going to reiterate that IMO "they can ask us to stop" is not ever a good justification for being obnoxious
17:42:04 <jbrooks> I sort of take issue with the idea that this is obnoxious
17:42:27 <jdoss> yea same.
17:42:30 <dustymabe> jbrooks: I don't think we're going to change peoples minds too much, but if there are clear conclusions from the data, the outcome can be easier to accept for those that believe whatever the decision is is the wrong way to go
17:42:38 <bgilbert> IMO the poll isn't about changing anyone's minds, it's about seeing whether anyone cares.  if no one cares, great.  if people are in favor, great.
17:43:20 <PanGoat> If you go a different route than the adamant poll responders (or even just users), respond "we factored in a variety of concerns"
17:43:35 <PanGoat> You can at least say you cared enough to ask
17:43:42 <dustymabe> so laying it all out. If we had to decide today and I had to make the decision I would try to do what is least offensive to everyone here
17:43:46 <dustymabe> which is option 6
17:44:02 <dustymabe> to be clear that isn't my personal opinion of what I would have chosen
17:44:08 <dustymabe> that is me reading the room
17:44:28 <dustymabe> so there you have it, do you want option 6 or do you want more data (twitter poll)?
17:44:30 <jbrooks> I don't think 6 makes sense
17:44:51 <travier> jbrooks: why?
17:45:01 <jbrooks> Because it conjures up a new community
17:45:08 <jdoss> I want to drive more users to FCOS and from a marketing standpoint using @coreos can help do that.
17:45:10 <jbrooks> The CoreOS ecosystem community
17:45:31 <jbrooks> We need more focus on this project, we don't need to be looking at ways to diffuse our efforts
17:45:34 <bgilbert> I agree with jbrooks on 6
17:45:36 <dustymabe> effectively option 6 would be a retween bot of @fedoracoreos (let's face it no one is staffing this thing to do some more legit curation)
17:45:45 <dustymabe> retweet*
17:46:02 <bgilbert> I'm not going to block any option.  I've raised my concerns, and if they're unconvincing, do what you think is right.
17:46:52 <red_beard> ditto what bgilbert said
17:47:06 <dustymabe> anybody else want to way in on "option 6 vs twitter poll" ?
17:47:21 <dustymabe> twitter poll kicks the can til we get more data
17:47:21 <jdoss> Look at it from this angle CoreOS the brand was bought by Red Hat and they are using it for Red Hat CoreOS and we are using it for Fedora CoreOS. FCOS is the base for RHCOS. They are giving us the root brand account @coreos and we should use that to drive more eyes this awesome work.
17:47:32 <jdoss> which means more help!
17:47:35 <lucab> but that community exists, it covers modern OSes, safe language, metrics/observation, distributed systems, immutable infra, etc
17:47:39 <travier> +1 for 6. No need for polls for me
17:48:23 <jbrooks> lucab, where does that community meet?
17:48:26 <walters> (where's the list of options again?)
17:48:29 <dustymabe> vote time: please put "6" or "poll" in the chat :)
17:48:36 <jbrooks> We can go ask them if they want to take over the acct :)
17:48:41 <lucab> reducing it to "a fairly new emerging flavor of Fedora" misses the whole reason why we do FCOS
17:48:42 <davdunc> I am of the same opinion around the branding.
17:48:44 <davdunc> 6
17:48:50 <jbrooks> dustymabe, We're down to just 6 or poll?
17:48:52 * PanGoat is happy to contribute towards promotion, including social media (once you make a decision)
17:48:55 <jbrooks> I'm still on 1
17:49:02 <dustymabe> jbrooks: I'm trying to find *some* way forward
17:49:02 <jdoss> I vote 1
17:49:14 <dustymabe> this is literally impossible
17:49:19 <lucab> jbrooks: it's me, you, the people I ping when I have doubts, OCI committee, etc
17:49:24 <dustymabe> and we can't keep having this same conversation every month
17:49:37 <walters> (not sure if it's on the list but there's also the idea that we could try to let flatcar have things there too but...)
17:49:47 <dustymabe> walters: read scrollback
17:50:12 <cyberpear> poll
17:50:31 <bgilbert> between 6 or poll, poll
17:50:32 <jbrooks> lucab, Best to let those projects tweet for themselves, and @coreos could retweet when that work touches fedora coreos
17:50:49 <jbrooks> Yes, if those are our only choices, poll
17:50:51 <lucab> jbrooks: that's indeed the proposal
17:51:06 <jlebon> poll
17:51:18 <dustymabe> poll gives us more information, so the next time we have this conversation, maybe it would be slightly different
17:51:25 <jbrooks> lucab, I don't get keeping fedoracoreos as a separate handle then
17:51:48 <jdoss> I think the poll is going to be bias with a bunch of angry CL users that are still upset RH bought CoreOS.
17:51:52 <jdoss> but fine, poll.
17:52:08 <dustymabe> :)
17:52:17 <dustymabe> well at least we're getting somehwere
17:52:21 <travier> 6
17:52:42 <lucab> jbrooks: that tweets FCOS-specific stuff. Which yes, it's a subset of what we care for under "coreos"
17:52:54 <pingou> ("angry CL users" is not specific enough these days :))
17:52:54 <PanGoat> note that a poll doesn't bind you to anything
17:52:57 <jbrooks> lucab, the only coreos that there is is us
17:53:01 <PanGoat> it's just information gathering
17:53:05 <jdoss> pingou: lol
17:53:10 <dustymabe> #agreed we'll run a twitter poll to get more information from the followers to see if we can get some much needed data to help inform our decision on twitter handles
17:53:23 <bgilbert> I'd suggest that this is not the best week to do this, though
17:53:32 <dustymabe> anybody disagree that the majority of the room wanted more iformation in the form of a poll?
17:53:38 <dustymabe> bgilbert: totally agree
17:53:51 <jbrooks> I don't think ppl were asking for more info
17:53:52 <dustymabe> the crapstorm is already at 100% chance
17:54:07 <PanGoat> post-holidays?
17:54:09 <lucab> jbrooks: that's your statement. People that have been working on etcd/prometheus/k8s for long time would strongly disagreee.
17:54:11 <dustymabe> PanGoat: +1 for that
17:54:13 <jbrooks> I think the only blocker is not wanting coreos to be gone as an entity
17:54:33 <jbrooks> lucab, it's a fact that something definite happened to that name
17:54:46 <jbrooks> And what happened is it was assigned to us, alone
17:55:12 <lucab> jbrooks: sure, it got bought and RH wants to give it back to the original community
17:55:17 <dustymabe> one very final piece of business
17:55:31 <jbrooks> lucab, this community, Fedora CoreOS
17:55:44 <dustymabe> who wants to volunteer to work on the questions for the poll (while trying to leave bias aside)?
17:55:48 <jbrooks> there's no coreos ecosystem weekly meeting
17:55:55 * PanGoat is happy to
17:56:07 <PanGoat> Given I'm new to the space, that leaves out bias
17:56:08 <jbrooks> dustymabe, I did write a suggested poll
17:56:14 <jbrooks> on the ml
17:56:24 <dustymabe> jbrooks: i'll try to grab that info.
17:56:29 <dustymabe> thanks PanGoat
17:56:42 <PanGoat> how often is the ML used? Is it worth subscribing?
17:56:51 <dustymabe> I think it's worth it, :)
17:56:55 <PanGoat> :)
17:57:07 <dustymabe> ok I'll close out the meeting soon, so sorry for this taking up so much extra time
17:57:11 <lucab> jbrooks: there is no coreos weekly meeting either, I only see a fedora-coreos one
17:57:17 * PanGoat adds to the pile of RH/Fedora MLs
17:57:21 <jbrooks> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/coreos@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/FP6JVDS2DNEJBPP6FWLDATXC7AQBZPT2/
17:57:34 <jbrooks> lucab, yes, exactly
17:57:58 <lucab> which leaves out plenty of people and activity relevant to what used to be "coreos" umbrella
17:58:12 <jbrooks> Right
17:58:20 <jbrooks> used to be is the key there
17:58:40 <jbrooks> That's what I'm saying, the fight over this handle is over missing what used to be
17:58:40 <dustymabe> #endmeeting